The last time around sponsors like Viacom, Inc. (VIA), Time Warner, Inc. (TWX), and Sony Corp.'s (TYO:6758) movie and music subsidiaries paid a whopping $86M USD (source: Maplight) to active Senators alone over the last six-year cycle, only to see their carefully laid plans dashed when the PROTECT IP Act.

With the defeat of PIPA, big media moved on, partnering with internet service providers to police file sharers via "six strikes" systems.

But a new coalition of special interests, which include America's two largest cellular service providers AT&T, Inc. (T) and Verizon Wireless -- jointly owned by Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) and Vodafone Group Plc. (LON:VOD) -- as well as two of the nation's largest software firms Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) and Intel Corp. (INTC), came together to create a similar data grab bill (Microsoft has since renounced its support). Security firms like Symantec Corp. (SYMC) also backed the bill.

That bill -- the "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act" (CISPA) (H.R. 3523) -- passed the house by a healthy 288-to-127 margin.

Pushing the bill through was $84M USD in funding from special interest backers (source: Maplight). With the average cost of a House seat running at a cool $1.44M USD in 2010 (source: OpenSecrets), that represents nearly 13 percent of the total cost of election for the 435 members of Congress.

CISPA was backed by nearly as much lobbyist cash as SOPA. [Image Source: i-Sight]

Perhaps that’s why 92 members of the Democratic minority joined with 196 members of the Republican majority in passing the measure, despite opposition from President Obama (D).

II. Supporters Defend "Voluntary" Warrantless Sharing

The bill in essence will create an open door that allows corporations to voluntarily share citizens’ records with the government without the government issuing warrants. Some companies find that appealing for a variety of reasons. First, some may be hoping to snag lucrative contracts to handle that data. Second, some may view it as protection against large-scale threats like Chinese hackers. Third, some feel that its language protects them from financial fallout of citizen lawsuits.

Corporate backers also appreciate that the government isn't trying to force them to share information on threats -- that was a major bone of contention about SOPA.

Sponsor Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) has long said the purpose of CISPA is to protect vital parts of America's connected infrastructure -- like utilities or cellular systems -- from attack from China, Iran, and other hostile foreign internet powers.

In a document "CISPA: Myth v. Fact" [PDF], Rep. Rogers and the bill's other backers defend it, pointing out that the bill limits when the government can collect data -- namely, in response to "cybersecurity threats", to assist in the investigation of violent crimes, or to counter child exploitation.

Rep. Rogers may have a bit of vested interest -- his wife Kristi Clemens Rogers is CEO of Aegis LLC a "security" defense contractor company, who could score lucrative contracts to provide cybersecurity "solutions" to the government under CISPA. Her company already has a $10B USD contract with the U.S. Department of State.

III. Innocent Bystanders Could be Exposed

To be fair, he's right. Versus SOPA, the language regarding privacy is seemingly much stronger and the scope of warrantless information passing is seemingly much narrower. But some argue that even cracking open the door of warrantless surveillance may lead to problems.

That's the position of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU writes:

[CISPA] would threaten Americans' privacy while immunizing companies from any liability should that cyberinformation-sharing cause harm.

One scenario that the bill could lead to trouble is if a public/shared connection or an infected citizen computer is used in an attack. Under such circumstances, innocent bystanders could have their email or browsing history seized despite not personally committing the crime under investigation.

If a shared connection at a coffee shop is used in an attack, your records could be seized.
[Image Source: Google Images/Unknown]

On Monday Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) slammed the bill, reiterating previous criticism. In a post he says CISPA represents "the new SOPA", "the latest assault on internet freedom", an "alarming form of corporatism," and a "Big Brother writ large."

Rep. Ron Paul blasted CISPA on Monday. [Image Source: AP]

Rep. Paul did manage to amend the bill to protect firearms and library records from warrantless surveillance. Rep. Paul abstained from the final vote on the bill, which saw only one of his suggested three amendments made.

President Obama has threatened to veto the bill. [Image Source: AFP/Getty Images]

One bone of contention appears to be "data cleansing" -- removing information irrelevant to an investigation before passing it to the government. Writes his office:

…the bill does not require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information when sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities. Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held accountable…for failing to safeguard personal information adequately.

The Administration supports the longstanding tradition to treat the Internet and cyberspace as civilian spheres…[and] newly authorized information sharing for cybersecurity purposes from the private sector to the government should enter the government through a civilian agency.

Of course the President's DoD appointees recently declared that internet attacks from foreign powers could be construed as an act of war, so this statement is somewhat inconsistent.

Nonetheless, under the threat of veto don't expect the Democratic-controlled Senate to be too eager to quickly take up the issue. That means that for now only similar executive orders from President Obama will be in place.

Look at the amount of red. It's appalling. At least my representative in Congress (a Republican) voted the way he should have, NO. It is so pathetic to hear people talk about the rights of citizens and the rights of states and then go vote for this.

What is the difference between a Dem and a Rep? It looks like a smart move. Choose a side. Light or the Darkness. Real point being is that we don't have any more individual politicians. Have to be part of the herd to be heard?

And the Republicans are surprised that they are losing ground... I am a Constitutionalist, fiscally conservative, socially moderate voter. The Republicans talk all day about small government, founding principles, and the Constitution and then they sell out at the first opportunity. They are against big government except when they are for it and vote for more surveillance and control over our lives. Worthless bunch on both sides. It is truly a crazy world when I find myself agreeing with Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi (in this case anyway).

If they continue their corrupt, politics-as-usual ways, the Republican party will become completely irrelevant. With weak candidates and no discernable principles, it is a ship adrift without a sail or rudder.

Let's see just a few of the supposedly principled Tea Party conservatives (all YES votes):Michael Burgess, Paul Ryan, Mo Brooks, Robert Aderholt, Bill Cassidy, Steve King, Lamar Smith, and so on...

With "friends" like this who needs enemies? Oh, and Mike Rogers is the epitome of the textbook slimy politician that makes used car salesmen look like saints by comparison. I voted against him and his wife every chance I got. His wife ran for a judge position with literally zero legal or judicial experience. They are that deluded. Anyway, bottom line is these two political parties are slowly but surely destroying our nation. The only thing they seem to agree on is screwing the American people every chance they get.

quote: No matter who US politicians claim to be, all of them exhibit two powerful but conflicting tendencies: to bureaucratize and to privatize.

The bureaucratizers among them wants to grow public bureaucracies, creating political machines and systems of patronage, and providing ample scope for pork barrel politics. The privatizers among them want to dismantle public institutions and privatize everything under the sun in order to shrink the public realm and to enhance the concentration of private wealth.

These two imperatives are at odds, not for any ideological reason, but simply because there is an inevitable tug of war between them: big public bureaucracies expand the public realm, but privatizing the public realm shrinks it.

All American politicians find it in their interest to both expand government and to privatize its functions.

When the US economy is growing nicely, the two factions find that their wishes are granted, and they go merrily along enlarging federal and local bureaucracies while assisting in the concentration of wealth, making everyone they care about happy—everyone except the population, which is being steadily driven into bankruptcy and destitution, but that's just a problem of perception, easily remedied by an army of political consultants come election time.

This public-private feeding frenzy is called “bipartisanship.” When the economy isn't growing, the two factions are forced to square off against each other in what amounts to a zero-sum game. This is called “gridlock.”

— Dmitri Orlov

and

quote: Who they are going to vote for doesn't matter: without exception they are going to vote for an American politician: a lawyer or a businessman, someone belongs to one of a few available political categories, all of them misnomers designed to confuse the public.

There are those who call themselves conservatives, and who are in fact not conservatives at all but free market liberals.

There are those who call themselves libertarians, but who either are not libertarians at all, or have somehow forgotten their anarchist-socialist roots, and who are in fact also free market liberals.

Then there are the “liberals,” who are also free market liberals but aspire to being nice, whereas the rest of the free market liberals are nasty.

But nobody here wants to be called a “liberal,” because in this topsy-turvy political universe it has become little more than a term of abuse.

It takes a long time to explain this nonsense to visitors from abroad, and when you round out the explanation by saying that these distinctions don't actually matter—because no matter what these politicians call themselves they are all state-capitalists who have been exhibiting quite a few fascist tendencies of late—they feel that you have wasted their time.

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer